You have just bought a new Merc, or a BMW.

It’s state of the art, with every safety and driver oriented feature fitted to enhance the driving experience. You drive it around the block then you decide to heed the advice that you overheard from a couple of old timers.

These guys were seasoned drivers but they never saw much point in these newfangled auto transmissions and other useless stuff.

So you decide to take control because you can do better than the engineers. You begin by ripping out the fuel injection system, all it really does is to provide great reliability, instant starting under all conditions and vastly superior fuel economy. The twin OHC motor isn’t needed so it goes as well then for good measure you chuck out the ABS, anti-skid protection and airbags, the power steering and the power brakes. Out goes the roll over protection, all the sound proofing material, the CD player, the electric windows, the heating and air conditioning and the luxury interior. On go the cross-ply tires and you swap those beautiful big disc brakes for wobbly old drums.

So now you are happy with your new flat headed V8, downdraught Stromberg carburetted, three speed, gas guzzling, noisy, hot in summer, cold in winter unreliable, uncomfortable lump which is all you need to get around, right?

I don’t think so……

So why, when there is all this massive technology available to enable them to make excellent images, do people keep wanting to make such a hash of things by insisting on shooting in manual?

I believe it’s smart to use all the tools in my tool box, and if my camera has certain capabilities, that is the very reason I chose to spend so much to buy the thing in the first place.

But then to choose not use those capabilities to their fullest?

I don’t get it.

If it’s just an ego thing it’s rather self-destructive.

What do you think?

I would go for the Canon 24-105 f/4L lens. It would make a nice walk around lens and has received some very good reviews. Best Buy has it on sale right now for $1,039.99 which is a fairly good price. I would get rid of the Quantray 75 - 200mm – Old lens w/Macro. I would also get rid of the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 - Di II w/VC unless you really need the f2.8. Only you know if you use this lens often enough to justify keeping it.

I would also consider upgrading the Canon XT to the 60D or at least the T4i. Both are steps up from the XT. I am not sure which is better sense I shoot a 7D, see what others here have to say.

Remember, it is normally better to upgrade your glass before your camera body.

Jim D

Hi. I am thinking of purchasing a ‘Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6 ‘L’ IS USM lens’ but am concerned where they are made. Most forums I have looked at everyone seems to think L class Canon lenses are made in Japan. However, just got a reply back from ProCameraShop telling me the lens they are selling is made in Taiwan. Am waiting for replies from other vendors including Amazon on where theirs are made, have also asked Canon but still waiting for reply. Does anyone know if L class lenses are the same quality regardless if made in Japan of Taiwan?

I did.... That is why I asked the question. Never heard of him, and couldn't find anything associated with photography on Google. There was one that was an outstanding draftsman, but photography was not obvious.

OK, I'll bite..... Who is Mr Ben Long, and what makes him think that? I have both 'L' and 'non-L' and think that the 'non-L' is good (much better than my 35mm film days) but my 100 mm f/2.8 IS USM is FANTASTIC. My EF-S 18-135mm kit lens is good, but my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM is as good as 'L' glass and much improved over the quality of the 18-135mm lens. That's my opinion, but then, I'm not Mr Ben Long.

As for the glass itself (not the complete lens), all of Canon's glass is excellent. It is what the engineers do with the glass that makes for a great lens.